If you receive this and you hate it and you don’t want to ever read it no matter what...that is fine; email me back and you will be deleted from my list (which is almost at the maximum anyway).

I attempt to post a new issue each Sunday by 2 or 3 pm central standard time (I sometimes fail at this attempt).

I try to include factual material only, along with my opinions (it should be clear which is which). I make an attempt to include as much of this week’s news as I possibly can. The first set of columns are intentionally designed for a quick read.

I do not accept any advertising nor do I charge for this publication. I write this principally to blow off steam in a nation where its people seemed have collectively lost their minds.

And if you are a believer in Jesus Christ, always remember: We do not struggle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places (Eph. 6:12).

Remember Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert’s nonpartisan rally for just the normal folks, the moderates? Surprise, the Democratic National Committee has become a part of this rally.

In any case, the estimates I have read are 150,000 people, predominantly white and mostly young people, and, following the model of the Beck rally, there were hundreds of people who picked up any trash left on the ground.

There was a beheading in Arizona which seems to be drug related. It is unlikely that the Arizona police will ignore it because it is druggie on druggie violence (which is why Mexico is at a crisis point).

The conservative group King Street Patriots is acting as poll watchers in the Houston area. The group has been accused of voter intimidation in Harris County by the Texas Democratic Party and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.

NPR aired a story on Arizona’s SB 1070 (the bill which is deemed controversial by many, not including the 70% who support it). NPR said that prison lobbyists played a significant roll in putting this bill together. The Senator who introduced this bill is calling this story a lie.

Communist USA party leader throws his support behind the Democratic party. What a surprise. It was so close.

Mohammed just became the #1 name given to new-bon sons in Great Britain (last year, it was Jack).

In Somalia, Al-Qaeda group executes 2 teenage girls and forces the town to watch.

The CBO director is warning that Obamacare will drive people out of the workforce.

The very liberal 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals strikes down citizen voter ID requirement in AZ (which could be simply showing a driver’s license).

Gawker runs a story on a sexless one-night stand between the unnamed author of the article and Christine O’Donnell. Add this to the bizarre stories written about Nikki Haley and Sarah Palin, all of which were given a fair amount of coverage.

There are 38 black GOP candidates in 21 states on ballots for the November general election. Many of these are TEA party candidates. Hmm, maybe this movement is not racist?

Betty McCollum (Rep: Mn-D), known for deliberately leaving out "under God" while leading the Pledge of Allegiance in the House in April 2002, is now claiming that al-Qaeda is no longer a threat to the U.S. Glad to hear.

President Obama: "Imagine the Republicans driving the economy into a ditch, and it's a deep ditch. It's a big ditch. And somehow they walked away from the accident, and we put on our boots and we rappelled down into the ditch--me and Jack and Sheldon and Jim and Patrick. We've been pushing, pushing, trying to get that car out of the ditch. And meanwhile, the Republicans are standing there, sipping on a Slurpee."

DNC head Time Kaine: “I see them [Democratic candidates] campaigning vigorously on our accomplishments: we saved the auto industry, we saved the financial sector, we passed a bill enabling women to get equal pay for equal work; and did historic healthcare reform.”

Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, comparing her rally to TEA party rallies: “I don’t see any swastikas or any pictures of the president in blackface or burned in effigy here. The difference between the way we express our first amendment rights and how I’ve seen TEA party—the extremist, Republican TEA party extremist express their rights is dramatically different.”

Bill Maher: "There's too much [bipartisanship]...We have democrats for one reason: to drag the ignorant, hillbilly-half of this country into the next century. [The American electorate] don't understand the issues, they are too stupid. They are like a dog. They understand inflection. They can understand fear. They can understand dominance...."

Former presidential candidate, John Kerry: "It's absurd. We've lost our minds. We're in a period of know-nothingism in the country, where truth and science and facts don't weigh in. It's all short-order, lowest common denominator, cheap-seat politics."

Vice President Joe Biden: "Every single great idea that has marked the 21st century, the 20th century and the 19th century has required government vision and government incentive."

Markos Moulitsas : “When you look at the world-views [of the radical right and the Taliban]...both sides are hostile toward women, they’re hostile toward gays, they have a very militaristic outlook—they think violence is the way to solve their problems...they want a theocratic government, they’re hostile toward education, toward science, and so on. From a values standpoint, they share the same values.”

Michael Moore (about conservatives): “They talk this way all the time...Glenn Beck, on the air, called (I don’t even want to say this)—“

Rachel Maddow: “Fantasized about killing you, fantasized about doing you harm—“

Moore: “O’Reilly, one night, said he didn’t believe in the death penalty except for Michael Moore. Bill O’Reilly said that the night after the Janet Jackson incident at the Superbowl...the next day, Bill O’Reilly calls for violence to happen to me...you can say that now on tv and become successful—preaching violence and praching hate. We’re going to enter a very scary time...be sure to vote on Tuesday”

Alan Grayson: “I think the right wing is consciously trying to institute a national nervous breakdown. They have gotten their supporters so stoked up on hatred and fear that they cannot contain themselves anymore.”

David Gregory: “Sarah Palin was out this week and she said, ‘We can see 2012 from my house;’ a play on her slip up of 2008.” Palin never said she could see Russia from her house; Tina Fey did when mocking Palin on Saturday Night Live. A huge number of voters believe that Palin said this.

E. J. Dionne about the mny views presented on NPR: “David [Brooks] and I argue politics on NPR all the time. So I should disclose that. And I would note, I'm a liberal. I'm always countered by David or somebody more conservative than David.” Out of the 17 or 18 political correspondents on NPR, only one of them can be identified as close to a conservative, and that is David Brooks, who is a moderate. All of the rest are self-admitted liberals.

Jon Stewart: "If we amplify everything, we hear nothing. There are terrorists and racists and Stalinists and Theocrats. But those are titles that must be earned. You must have the resume. Not being able to distinguish between real racists and Tea Partiers and real bigots and Juan Williams or Rick Sanchez is an insult not only to those people, but to the racists themselves who have put in the exhausting effort it takes to hate."

Director James Cameron: ...if that continues, business as usual [political leaders doing nothing about global warming], as our leaders in Washington say it is okay to do, we will have extincted 70% of the species on this planet by the end of the century.

Google CEO: People who in my view criminally doubt some of the science [behind global warming]—

Director James Cameron: —I agree, criminally; I agree with that. Well, look, its’ a very tough problem. Our so-called leaders are there to preserve their own power primarily and secondarily maybe to do some public good, but usually only for their own constituencies, so it always forms an us versus them scenario. People, we need to evolve, mentally and philosophically, to something which has never existed before. We need to become techno-indigenous people of an entire earth, not of a nation, not of a state, but of a planet.”

George Will: “They [the TEA party members] believe in spontaneous combustion and are spontaneous combustion. It is hard to determine who their leaders are, and they are certainly not looking to Republican leaders. More than an insurgency against Obama, the TEA party is an insurgency against the Republican leadership that disappointed them in the Bush years.”

Greg Gutfeld: “Anyway, I'm one of the few to say, keep funding NPR. Because if we don't, they go away. And we can't have that. We need them around to remind ourselves what subsidized failure looks like”

Trent Lott: “We don’t need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples. As soon as they get here [to Washington], we need to coop them.”

Jon Stewart interviews Barrack Obama for what is possibly his toughest interview ever (with some text). The body language was quite telling. The President leaned back for much of the interview, like a fighter trying to avoid being punched.

In case that is not the entire interview, it is also posted by the Washington Post:

RNC Chairman Michael Steele presents his closing argument to Brett Baird (this is quite good); Steele is at his best:

Reason TV on “Where are the Jobs? The Parallels between Today and the Great Depression” (video and text):

TEA Party America (this is 5 minutes; give it at least a minute; it’s a good vid):

CNN actually does a montage of Obama’s car analogy (his “Arsenal of Metaphors”):

Here is a TEA party member you will never hear about in the alphabet media—Star Parker:

Carl Paladino is interviewed, but walks off when the news woman continued to press him about calling Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) a "little girl" (one of the most important issues of the day to over-taxes and underwater New Yorkers):

Anti-Beck guy carries a sign around during the singing of the Star Spangled Banner.

Seth Meyer: “A new report from the center for disease and prevention suggests that the number of cases of diabetes will double and possibly triple by 2050, which can’t be too surprising for a country which uses fried chicken as bread.”

Seth Meyers: “Entomologists in the New York City area have notice an increasing number of the brown marmirated stink bug, which lets off a foul odor which disturbed or threatened. Just what New York needs, more things that do that.”

Libertyman13 as a comment: “McCain...is all too willing to cave in to the theocratic policies of the lunatic right. ”

BlueHawk as a comment: “Evangelicals...want a Theocratic government ruled by them which is in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United States.”

RainChild as a comment: “And who was the first to call Roosevelt a communist? Why it was the John Birch Society, which was funded by Nelson Rockefeller (zionist). Who was behind the Iran contra? why It's the Council for National policy, some of which were members of the John Birch society. The council for national policy set up Clinton's impeachment. They want a theocratic government in the United States. And what is Ron Paul an unofficial member of? The controlled John Birch Society. He's even been in a documentary with these people.”

TN Yellow Dog as a comment: “Religious right extremists in the US are very well-financed, organized, and anti-democratic. Some of them are very explicit (among themselves) about wanting to install a theocratic, dictatorial government to replace the one we have and to imprison or execute dissenters, as well as "criminals" such as fornicators and adulterers.”

Tom Hall: “Teabag Republicans...want a theocratic government, which forces everyone to accept their version of religious morality.”

Nathan Hecht: “You can hear James Dobson's molars grinding right now. This is exactly what the radical dominionists don't want: a secular court recognizing civil and human rights, especially for women. They want a theocratic government, a pseudo-Christian analogue to the Taliban in Afghanistan, where the people are ruled by a government according to skewed interpretations of scripture.”

Priscilla Owen: “You can hear James Dobson's molars grinding right now. This is exactly what the radical dominionists don't want: a secular court recognizing civil and human rights, especially for women. They want a theocratic government, a pseudo-Christian analogue to the Taliban in Afghanistan, where the people are ruled by a government according to skewed interpretations of scripture.”

Wall Street Journal editorial, Why Business Should Fear the Tea Party by Robert B. Reich.

Markos compares conservatives to the Taliban (they are militaristic, they want a theocratic government):

Michael Moore concerned about Bill O’Reilly calling for violence against him, which is one other reason we ought to call our neighbors and get them to all vote Democrat:

Luckily, the Democratic party does not use fear as a weapon. Just remember, Republicans hate everyone except for rich white businessmen and they want to install a theocratic government and they will destroy businesses as well.

1) On one of Beck’s excellent shows this week, he bemoaned the loss of so many manufacturing jobs, but he did not really give the reason for that. He made a few suggestions, but one of the biggest reasons is environmental activism. Factories produce pollution, and radical environmentalists, the EPA and environmental lawyers have shut down many a business, so that they cannot afford to stay in business.

2) You probably do not know this, but your air conditioning system is probably obsolete and has been governmentally regulated out of existence. If you want to replace 1 of the 3 components in your R–22 AC system, you may find out that you can no longer find condenser units for R–22 units and you must go with a 410a system. But, don’t worry—even though 410a systems are almost brand new and R–22 are no longer being made, the government has decided that 410a systems are bad for global warming, so there will be a third system out there which will supercede these 2. It is no less insane than outlawing incandescent light bulbs for compact florescent bulbs, which contain dangerous amounts of mercury (no worries; as long as a CFL bulb never breaks, you are fine).

3) When so-called millionaires are given the death tax, often what is destroyed is a business or a farm which either has to go into great debt to stay in business (to pay the taxes) or must be liquidated in whole or in part because of the taxes.

4) I can’t get over that you can vote without a picture I.D. in some states. Maybe in all of them?

5) To California: the best reason to vote for Meg Whitman instead of Jerry Brown? You are not going to be bailed out by House with a majority of Republicans. For at least the next 2 years, and probably the next 4 years or more, there will be no federal bailouts for California.

6) As time goes on, we find more and more about the healthcare bill that was passed. Some people are able to use their health savings accounts and other types of insurance to pay for over the counter drugs. However, that has changed. This bill will require a doctor’s prescription in order to be reimbursed for over the counter medicine.

7) I personally like the “I’m not a witch” comme rican put out by Christine O’Donnell (although it was rated fairly low by the Frank Luntz crowd). The only thing that could have made it better (and I think Dennis Miller suggested this?) is if she wiggled her nose, Bewitched-style, and disappeared at the end of the ad. That would have been cool.

The nation's unemployment rate is 9.6%, but it is 16.1% for blacks and 41% for black teens.

The National Debt has increased by $5 trillion since Nancy Pelosi became Speaker-of-the-House less than 4 years ago.

42% the Republican (I saw another poll, but I cannot recall which one it was, where these numbers were switched).

The first Black President (Bill Clinton) attempts to get a Black Democrat out of the Florida Senate race so that a former Republican might have a better chance winning the race (against a Cuban, no less). Where is the investigative journalism? Where are the piercing questions? Where are the stories?

Do you recall the incessant news coverage on the worst aspects of the war in Iraq during the Bush administration? Many liberals said this was not slanted journalism, but simply the old adage, if it bleeds, it leads. There are still ongoing attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we don’t hear quite as much about it. Muslims stage on an average, 5 attacks throughout the world every single day, but most people don’t even know this is going on. So, if it bleeds, it leads applies to stories which can impact Republican leaders negatively.

How much do you know about John Edwards and actual love affair and love child? Some members of the press knew or suspected this during the 2008 campaign, and no one printed a word of it. However, some anonymous guy writes a story about Christine O’Donnell, a blogger supposes that maybe Sarah Palin’s son really is her daughter’s, and 2 guys claim to have affairs with Nikki Haley, and this stuff finds its way into the alphabet media. The whole idea is, get the candidates and the people engaged with unimportant (and often non-existent) issues, so that rising debt, insane government spending, and unemployment are never discussed.

SNL opened with Joe Biden tonite; given all of the dozens upon dozens of goofy things that he has said, not one of them was highlighted. It was a pretty lame skit.

Of course, a skit could have been done with Obama, Pelosi and Reid prior to the election, talking about their accomplishments and how the election will turn out—but SNL would never do that.

If Republicans win, can you give one example of a way you might be willing to compromise with conservatives?

This one is rather complex, so let me give you the names of the players. In the Florida Senate race, there are 3 candidates: Marco Rubio (Republican, and possible GOP presidential candidate in the near future); Charlie Crist (former popular moderate Republican governor of Florida who lost the primary to Marco Rubio, and, instead of throwing his support to the winning Republican, is running in this election as a moderate independent, characterizing Rubio as another extreme right-wing candidate); and Kenneth Meek (a Black Democrat, who won his primary). Throughout the race, Rubio has held a slight lead over Crist (who also has great name recognition, as a former governor) and Meek has been far behind.

So, apparently, there is a plot hatched in the White House (Crist has admitted to speaking to people in the White House, although he will not say who exactly) and former President Bill Clinton has had a conversation with Meek. Meek is being quite closed mouth about this conversation (giving contradictory answers as to the reason for Clinton’s visit), but let me suggest that Bill Clinton said something like, “Let’s say there is this fictional race between 3 men, a Republican, an independent and a Democrat. The Democrat has no chance of winning, but, if the independent wins, he would be very helpful to the Democrats in this coming election. And, for this reason, Democrats would be very appreciative to the Democrat for dropping out of the race. Bear in mind, I am just talking of a hypothetical situation. I am not here offering anything to you or suggesting that you do anything like drop out of the race.”

First big issue to Democrats is the Senate—there is the possibility that Republicans can take the Senate this election cycle. It will be like drawing to an inside straight, but it can be done. If Rubio was defeated, it would be even less likely that Republicans could win the Senate.

Here is what is at play. Rubio, an American of Cuban descent, shows great potential in the Republican party and could be a GOP presidential candidate in the next 10 years. He is intelligent, good-looking, with a good-looking family, and he can articulate conservative values without a teleprompter.

This is a problem to Democrats for many reasons—of course, any potential presidential candidate is a threat, but more than this, a Latin Republican with a Latin name is a serious threat. Democrats depend upon 2 voting blocs: Blacks and Latinos. They need about 70% or more from these 2 blocs in order to win elections. Without them, there is no Democratic party. If, all of a sudden, the GOP puts out there a Latin presidential candidate and there is enthusiastic support for him, all of a sudden, all of these allegations of racial bias in the Republican party are shown to be a sham. Hispanics, told for decades, that race and identity politics are important, would be surprised to find a GOP Hispanic running for president.

Furthermore, the values of the GOP match up much more with Hispanics than do Democratic values.

Why is Clinton involved here? Several reasons. First, it is probably his idea because he is clearing the field for his wife to run for president in 2012 and/or 2016. Secondly, the White House does not want its fingerprints on this. How would it look for the first real Black president to tell a Black Senate hopeful to step to the back of the bus for the good of the party? So, the person who goes to Meek has to have juice but no direct connection to the White House.

Here is the risk: Clinton, a president who is highly popular with Blacks, will be asking a Black Democrat to drop out of the race so that a white former Republican can win—if some Blacks are paying attention, the message here can’t be too good.

Why would the Democrats take a risk like this, because it could come out? Simple—newspapers will barely cover this story, if at all; no one is going to do any investigative journalism (apart from FoxNews, maybe); but apart from FoxNews and some blog spots on the internet, most Americans will not even know that this is going on.

This is the second confirmed story like this (remember how Sestak was offered a job to drop out of his primary?). That other story got very little coverage, so the same is expected for this story.

He can’t seem to let go of this car driving off a cliff story (or driving into a ditch). Obama has never had to run on his record before, and he has no idea what to do.

If you think the TEA party adherents are extremists or that they have been coopted by Republicans.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi will retire from politics within the next 2.5 years.

This is not a difficult prediction: Obama will blame the Republicans for obstructionism for the next 2 years. We are going to hear this spouted by prominent Democratic figures, the President himself in at least half of his Saturday messages, and the alphabet media will continue running stories on this theme. Look to see the phrases gridlock, obstructionism, ideological, refusing to (or, not willing to) work together.

Obama is going to continue to fall in the polls; but not as far as Bush did. When the smoke clears, these 2 will be ranked fairly close to one another as presidents (although Bush ought to be about 10 places or more ahead of Obama and Obama ought to be at the bottom with Carter).

Over and over again, I have said that Bush will fair well historically; right now, several polls rate him more favorably than President Obama (and recall, many historians and pundits have already put Obama into the top 20 presidents and listed Bush in the bottom 20).

China owns 95% of the rare minerals in the world. These minerals have a myriad of technological and military uses. If our manufacturing is shut down to where we cannot manufacture planes, ships, and tanks, we cannot fight a war. What would it take for China to come here and claim its debt?

My second paranoid thought is, the budget. The other day, I heard on FoxNews, someone from the Republican party speaking about cutting $100 billion from the budget. How meaningless is that? The only chance I see for Republicans is to put out a budget which cuts the deficit in half, with a clear pathway to eliminating it next year. Submitting a balanced budget, no matter who or what gets cut, would be even more impressive.

This is a key election in American politics, and there are many factors at play. First of all, there is no apparent way to determine whether or not Charlie Brown ought to be voting in such and such an election, and he does not have to present any I.D., so we have no idea how many people are voting illegally.

Already, there have been many reports of voter fraud. There are absentee ballots which are suspicious (some batches of which have the same handwriting on them); there are voting machines which are questionable (there have been complaints of machines being rigged, so that, no matter how you vote, the other candidate’s name comes up); and SEIU workers have been brought in to fix these machines. I don’t know how this compares with previous years, but there seems to be quite a number of reports out there right now (it is possible that I am more aware of them because there are so many alternate news resources today).

So, there is a ground game and a turn-out issue. So far, the TEA party has turned out a large number of people to demonstrations all over the United States, but, to his credit, Jon Stewart turned out 150,000 people to Washington D.C. on what appeared to be as much a lark as a political statement.

There are also the polls. We do not know which polls are really accurate. Rasmussen, in the previous election, was right on the money. However, we have no idea what these other polls mean—have they put together a reasonable turn-out model (that is, just as important as randomizing the people they poll is matching these people to a reasonable turn-out expectation). Whereas, I trust Rasmussen, and furthermore, think that most of the polling is done with sincere intentions, there is some polling which seems to be off.

There is also the issue of TEA party candidates not being very politically adept. When pressed on meaningless side issues, many give their opinion, often spending several minutes giving their position on something they will personally have no impact in (news organizations love to do this to candidates who lack political savvy). Very few of the TEA party candidates are able to pivot on such questions (“My position on abortion, although interesting, really has nothing to do with this election. The key to this election is, do you like the out-of-control spending in Washington, and, if you do, then vote for my opponent. If you think we have out of control spending in Washington, then vote for me, because I will vote to curb this spending.”). When all is said and done, the primary function of a Senator or a Congressman is to cast 1 vote out of many, in this or that direction. They may or may not have colorful lives, but it is how they will vote which is their primary function (who cares if they have said something stupid or used a vocative which they should not have, or whatever).

Let me give you an example: Delaware. Here, we have the Senate candidates Christine O’Donnell, the Republican candidate and Christ Coons, the Democrat candidate. Throughout most of the race, the public polls have shown O’Donnell 10 points or more behind throughout most of the election (last Thursday, there was an independent poll which put her back 21 points; another has her trailing by 25 points; and, as of Friday, Rasmussen has her down by 11 points). So, why are heavy hitters going to Delaware to campaign for Coons? This ought to be a gimme race for the Democrats. Why are there over-the-top attacks against O’Donnell, like dredging up stuff from 10 years ago (calling her a witch) or what appears to be made-up stories designed to impugn her character? Why go to that much trouble to attack this woman, if she has no chance?

According to several news stories, O’Donnell has claims to have "dabbled into witchcraft" and that U.S. scientists were "cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains." These seems pretty nutty to me, and makes me wonder if there is any basis in fact for these supposed quotations. For several news stories to run these quotations, indicates that they are interested in taking O’Donnell down as well.

The stories which I read on this race often gave Coons a reasonable evaluation, but they spent 3 or 4 times as much space devoted to O’Donnell, describing in a number of ways how far out of the mainstream she is.

In any case, if this race is within 5 points (which I predict), no matter who wins, that will signal a real TEA party revolution. If she continues to be 15–20 points behind, as most of the polls have her, then this election will be significant, but not revolutionary.

The next race to watch is Connecticut. Rasmussen has the Republican Senate candidate, Linda McMahon, down by 13 points against Richard Blumenthal. However, the Quinnipiac University poll has this race at 49% (Blumenthal) to 46%, which, quite obviously, is a much closer race. As I said, I trust Rasmussen; however, the turn-out models are key here. Even though Delaware is a heavy Democratic state, who shows up to vote will determine this race. If McMahon takes this race, again, this could indicate a TEA party wave election. If she is 3 or more points behind, then, again, this will be significant, but not revolutionary.

The third race to watch is the West Virginia race. Meaningless positions fill the headlines, e.g., Republican John Raese’s desire to eliminate the minimum wage (some which I agree with; but many do not). However, what is important, as in all of the other races is, what kind of a budget is Raese going to vote for or against?

There has been an interesting dynamic in this race, because his Democratic opponent, Joe Manchin, has been trying to run to the right of Raese. Many of his ads leave out his Democratic affiliation, indicate that he is anti-Obama on many issues, and that he is going to vote against all of the crazy stuff in Washington (overspending, high budgets, etc.).

So, here, it comes down to a matter of trust. The Blue Dog Democrats (those who claimed to be fiscally responsible) were the votes which passed the Stimulus Bill, Healthcare, and the Wall Street Regulatory Bill. Not all of them voted this way, but enough of them did to pass these budget-busting monstrosities. So, is Manchin telling the truth, or is he saying what he has to say to get elected?

Most polls have this race reasonably close (3–6 points apart) which Manchin in the lead. Like the other races, if the Republican squeaks out a victory, this is significant. If he loses by 2 or more points, much less so.

Those are the east coast races. I named them, because we will know more about them early on this Tuesday.

The other 2 races to watch are the Senate races in Washington state and California. However, these may not be decided until late into the night.

Republicans need to take 3 or 4 of these races in order to control the Senate; and right now, the polls are against them in all 5 states.

One more thing to watch: Proposition 23, which would delay implementation of AB32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act. Where are Californians on this? Luckily, it looks like they will at least keep marijuana illegal (otherwise, California would be a magnet for dope smokers).

1.The United States has lost approximately 42,400 factories since 2001. About 75 percent of those factories employed over 500 people when they were still in operation.

2.Dell Inc. has announced plans to dramatically expand its operations in China with an investment of over $100 billion over the next decade.

3.Dell has announced that it will be closing its last large U.S. manufacturing facility in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Approximately 900 jobs will be lost.

4.In 2008, 1.2 billion cellphones were sold worldwide. So how many of them were manufactured inside the United States? Zero.

5. If our trade deficit with China increases at its current rate, the U.S. economy will lose over half a million jobs this year alone.

6. As of the end of July, the trade deficit with China had risen 18 percent compared to the same time period a year ago.

7. The United States has lost a total of about 5.5 million manufacturing jobs since October 2000.

8. From 1999 to 2008, employment at the foreign affiliates of US parent companies increased an astounding 30 percent to 10.1 million

9. In 1959, manufacturing represented 28 percent of U.S. economic output. In 2008, it represented 11.5 percent.

10. Ford Motor Company recently announced the closure of a factory that produces the Ford Ranger in St. Paul, Minnesota.

11. As of the end of 2009, less than 12 million Americans worked in manufacturing. The last time less than 12 million Americans were employed in manufacturing was in 1941.

12. In America today, consumption accounts for 70 percent of GDP. Of this 70 percent, over half is spent on services.

13. The United States has lost a whopping 32 percent of its manufacturing jobs since the year 2000.

14. In 2001, the United States ranked fourth in the world in per capita broadband Internet use. Today it ranks 15^th.

15.Manufacturing employment in the U.S. computer industry is actually lower in 2010 than it was in 1975.

16.Printed circuit boards are used in tens of thousands of different products. Asia now produces 84 percent of them worldwide.

17.The United States spends approximately $3.90 on Chinese goods for every $1 that the Chinese spend on goods from the United States.

18.One prominent economist is projecting that the Chinese economy will be three times larger than the U.S. economy by the year 2040.

19.The Census Bureau says 43.6 million Americans are now living in poverty, which is the highest number of poor Americans in the 51 years that records have been kept.

Barack Obama is a pragmatist, James Kloppenberg tells the New York Times. No, he doesn't mean Obama is practical-minded; no one thinks that anymore. In fact, Kloppenberg, a Harvard historian, disparages the "vulgar pragmatism" of Bill Clinton while praising Obama's "philosophical pragmatism":

It is a philosophy that grew up after Darwin published his theory of evolution and the Civil War reached its bloody end. More and more people were coming to believe that chance rather than providence guided human affairs, and that dogged certainty led to violence.

Pragmatism maintains that people are constantly devising and updating ideas to navigate the world in which they live; it embraces open-minded experimentation and continuing debate. "It is a philosophy for skeptics, not true believers," Mr. Kloppenberg said.

Kloppenberg has a new book coming out, "Reading Obama: Dreams, Hopes and the American Political Tradition." According to the Times, Kloppenberg "sees Mr. Obama as a kind of philosopher president," a "true intellectual." Such philosophers are a "rare breed": the Adamses, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, Wilson and now Obama.

"Imagine the Republicans driving the economy into a ditch," the philosopher president said the other day. "And it's a deep ditch. It's a big ditch. And somehow they walked away from the accident, and we put on our boots and we rappelled down into the ditch--me and Jack and Sheldon and Jim and Patrick. We've been pushing, pushing, trying to get that car out of the ditch. And meanwhile, the Republicans are standing there, sipping on a Slurpee." John Dewey had nothing on this guy!

If the president does not seem to be the intellectual heavyweight Kloppenberg makes him out to be, the Harvard historian has an explanation: Obama is a sort of secret-agent philosopher. "He would have had to deny every word," Kloppenberg tells the Times, which helpfully explains that "intellectual" is "a word that is frequently considered an epithet among populists with a robust suspicion of Ivy League elites."

When Sarah Palin called Obama a "professor," some professors accused her of racism. What she really meant, they claimed, was "uppity." Kloppenberg's similar characterization, however, draws a quite different response:

Those who heard Mr. Kloppenberg present his argument at a conference on intellectual history at the City University of New York's Graduate Center responded with prolonged applause. "The way he traced Obama's intellectual influences was fascinating for us, given that Obama's academic background seems so similar to ours," said Andrew Hartman, a historian at Illinois State University who helped organize the conference.

One assumes that Andrew Hartman is a serious scholar, although one doesn't know for sure because one has never heard of him. Barack Obama, by contrast, is a scholarly dilettante, a professional politician who has moonlighted as a university instructor.

Yet Hartman's remark about Obama's "academic background" is revealing. Professors imagine Obama is one of them because he shares their attitudes: their politically correct opinions, their condescending view of ordinary Americans, their belief in their own authority as an intellectual elite. He is the ideal product of the homogeneous world of contemporary academia. In his importance, they see a reflection of their self-importance.

Kloppenberg's thesis reminds us of another elaborate attempt at explaining Obama: Dinesh D'Souza's "The Roots of Obama's Rage." D'Souza, like Kloppenberg, imputes to Obama a coherent philosophy, in D'Souza's case "anticolonialism." It is a needlessly elaborate explanation for an unremarkable set of facts.

Occam's razor suggests that Obama is a mere conformist--someone who absorbed every left-wing platitude he encountered in college and never seems to have seriously questioned any of them. Kloppenberg characterizes Obama as a skeptic, not a true believer. We're not sure he has an active enough mind to be either one.

Earlier this month, the Obama administration reported that the federal deficit hit a near-record $1.3 trillion for fiscal year 2010. That means the government had to borrow 37 cents out of every dollar it spent. If Congress continues existing taxing and spending policies, federal deficits will reach a projected $2 trillion deficit in just 10 years. America cannot survive such sustained deficits, and Americans know it. According to a poll conducted last week by The Hill, 52% of independent voters surveyed cited debt reduction as a priority, compared with only 39 percent who said additional federal spending to create jobs is more important.

Our nation's deficits are, in reality, a spending problem. Even if the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent, revenues are set to return to their post-World War II average of 18% by 2020. Spending, on the other hand, continues to explode. After averaging 20% since World War II, federal spending is set to soar to 26% of the gross domestic product (GDP) by 2020. If Congress is to have any chance of cutting the deficit, spending must be cut. But how?

The lion's share of spending growth is due to the big three entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Heritage has Solutions for each of these programs including: 1) transforming Social Security into a real insurance program that offers a safety net for poorer retirees; 2) transforming Medicare into a defined contribution system that would be capped and reviewed periodically; and 3) changing Medicaid from a open-ended entitlement into an insurance-based model of private coverage. But these are all long-term reforms that will take time to implement. What can the next Congress do as soon as they take office to prove to the American people that they are serious about cutting spending?

The Heritage Foundation's Brian Riedl has identified $343 billion in spending cuts that can be made for the fiscal year 2012 budget. You can see a table of all the cuts here. The bulk of the cuts fall into six areas:

• Empowering state and local governments. Congress should focus the federal government on performing a few duties well and allow the state and local governments, which are closer to the people, to creatively address local needs in areas such as transportation, justice, job training and economic development.

• Consolidating duplicative programs. Past Congresses have repeatedly piled duplicative programs on top of preexisting programs, increasing administrative costs and creating a bureaucratic maze that confuses people seeking assistance.

• Privatization. Many current government functions could be performed more efficiently by the private sector.

• Targeting programs more precisely. Corporate welfare programs benefit those who do not need assistance in the American free enterprise system. Other programs often fail to enforce their own eligibility requirements.

• Eliminating outdated and ineffective programs. Congress often allows the federal government to run the same programs for decades, despite many studies showing their ineffectiveness.

• Eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. Taxpayers will never trust the federal government to reform major entitlements if they believe that the savings will go toward "bridges to nowhere," vacant government buildings and Grateful Dead archives.

$343 billion in spending cuts will not balance our nation's $1.3 trillion budget deficit. But it would be great start to permanently shrinking the size and power of the federal government.

There is a whiff of anarchy in the air this morning. As I sit here writing, a conservative victory in the midterm elections looms. But I find no reason to be optimistic. The midterm elections will solve nothing. The plain fact is that conservatives have lost the battle for America. The country that many of us were born in has ceased to exist. And we have no one to blame but ourselves. Nothing can or will change until we come to terms with the grim reality of moral degeneration. And I have no hope that this can happen, save by some terrible trial.

Last week in Oklahoma City, two pedestrians were run down by cars at the same intersection within a few hours. In one incident, the driver did not bother to stop, but continued driving as if nothing had happened. It was a horrific but perfect metaphor for the self-absorbed entitlement mentality that grips the country.

Every day, the news brings a startling new incident of moral corruption. A few days ago it was reported that an eighteen-year-old geology student at Arizona State University had starred in an online pornographic film in which she performed "explicit and degrading" sex acts for a one-time payment of $2,000. The young woman explained that she needed the money to supplement her scholarship, and then inexplicably proclaimed, "I have morals!"

We are a nation of gluttons. About one-third of adults in the U.S. are obese. To qualify as "obese," the average person has to be not just overweight, but carry an extra thirty-five pounds or more. In the last thirty years, the obesity rate in America has more than doubled. It is the sheerest irony that today, the average person has the choice of a multiplicity of fresh, wholesome, and nutritious foods, all available at the lowest prices in history. But choosing and preparing the best foods takes time and effort. We would rather stuff ourselves with fast food because it's tasty and convenient. The consequences of this slothful lifestyle include hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease. After ruining our health through gluttony, we then go to our physicians and demand a quick fix in the form of a pill. Pharmaceutical companies are glad to oblige. And the government must pay, because free health care is now a "right."

There is no better index for America's moral degradation than television programming. Compare today's shows with those of a generation ago. Every episode of "The Andy Griffith Show" contained a short moral lesson, and "The Twilight Zone" challenged our intellects and stretched our imaginations. But entertainment and instruction have devolved into shock and novelty. The networks are locked in a downward spiral to see who can provide the most outrageous and offensive programming. It's not their fault. They're just giving the American people what they want.

Children are not as smart as their parents. The average child today spends thirteen hours watching television for every hour he spends reading. We blame teachers and schools for failing to educate our children. But what can they do with undeveloped and undisciplined minds that expect to be entertained and rebel at the labor of thought? The decline in intellectual aptitude is so dramatic that the authors of the SAT test have had to add a hundred points to the combined math and verbal score just to make current averages equal of those of a generation ago.

We are oblivious to the fact that our society is intellectually and artistically bankrupt. Modern art is not good enough to be bad. At the beginning of the sixteenth century, Leonardo da Vinci took four years to paint the Mona Lisa. He left the work unfinished because he was always seeking to add "perfection to perfection." Earlier this year, x-ray fluorescence spectroscopy revealed that the way Leonardo created realistic flesh tones was by building up successive layers of pigments that were as thin as a few micrometers. A micrometer is a thousandth of a millimeter.

Compare Leonardo's work with that of the modern American artist Robert Ryman. Ryman began his career working as a security guard at a museum. The guard decided he wanted to become a painter, so he bought some white house paint and slathered it on a canvas. Art critics had orgasms. For decades, Ryman has continued to produce paintings that consist of nothing but monochrome white. The tones and textures vary, but most of Ryman's paintings consist of nothing but a plain white surface. Ryman has explained that he paints only white surfaces because he wants to "reduce visual disturbances." Imagine that the next time you're contemplating Michelangelo's "disturbances" on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

Our popular music is a painful cacophony of obnoxious dissonance. The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had Mozart, Beethoven, and Tchaikovsky. We have Snoop Dogg and Lady Gaga. Is that progress? We have advanced technology, but do we use it to uplift ourselves? No, we indulge the animal side of our natures. The internet is mostly used for downloading pornography or playing video games.

In America today, everyone is entitled to everything. According to a recent report by NPR, the mentally retarded are now attending college and receiving grants. Professors are being advised (i.e., pressured) to modify their curricula to accommodate the new students. People incessantly demand entitlements and handouts. Every government intervention in the free-market system creates a fresh problem that demands another ruinous intervention with unintended consequences. Nobody is responsible for anything, and no one wants to pay the bills. And believe me, they're coming due.

In this brave new world, everyone has the right to not be offended, and no one can be held accountable for anything. The fundamental unit of human civilization, the family, has been caustically eroded by feminism. The divorce rate is fifty percent. Oklahoma is supposedly a conservative state. Last year, a state legislator introduced a bill that would require parents with minor children seeking a divorce to first undergo counseling. Not only was the bill not passed, but the legislator was derided and mocked. How dare anyone be required to undertake the work necessary to save a marriage for the sake of his or her children? Why, it might interfere with their pursuit of happiness.

We celebrate homosexuality and then wonder why sexually transmitted diseases are exploding. According to the CDC, men-who-have-sex-with-men make up only two percent of the population but account for 53 percent of all new HIV infections and 64 percent of all new syphilis cases.

I'm beginning to acquire an appreciation for Paul's doctrine of Original Sin. The nation that began with freedom of religion has progressed to freedom from religion, freedom from moral constraint, and freedom from responsibility. Just as Plato described in the Republic, the "horses and asses" are "marching along with all the rights and dignities of freemen," and the ultimate result can be only that "tyranny will spring from democracy."

Elections matter only in the short term. Every long-term social index I am aware of is negative. The plain fact is that the American people are too morally degenerate to be capable of effective self-government. The Roman satirist Juvenal understood. "The people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions and all else, now meddles no more and longs eagerly for just two things -- bread and games!" I can find no reason to be optimistic. It is only our blind vanity that lets us pretend that the United States can endure forever. Rome fell, and so will America. For all intents and purposes, it is already over.

Barack Obama put the Democrats in the position of forever redeeming a fallen nation rather than leading a great one.

Whether or not the Republicans win big next week, it is already clear that the "transformative" aspirations of the Obama presidency-the special promise of this first black president to "change" us into a better society-are much less likely to materialize. There will be enough Republican gains to make the "no" in the "party of no" even more formidable, if not definitive.

But apart from this politics of numbers, there is also now a deepening disenchantment with Barack Obama himself. (He has a meager 37% approval rating by the latest Harris poll.) His embarrassed supporters console themselves that their intentions were good; their vote helped make history. But for Mr. Obama himself there is no road back to the charisma and political capital he enjoyed on his inauguration day.

How is it that Barack Obama could step into the presidency with an air of inevitability and then, in less than two years, find himself unwelcome at the campaign rallies of many of his fellow Democrats?

The first answer is well-known: His policymaking has been grandiose, thoughtless and bullying. His health-care bill was ambitious to the point of destructiveness and, finally, so chaotic that today no citizen knows where they stand in relation to it. His financial-reform bill seems little more than a short-sighted scapegoating of Wall Street. In foreign policy he has failed to articulate a role for America in the world. We don't know why we do what we do in foreign affairs. George W. Bush at least made a valiant stab at an American rationale-democratization-but with Mr. Obama there is nothing.

All this would be enough to explain the disillusionment with this president-and with the Democratic Party that he leads. But there is also a deeper disjunction. There is an "otherness" about Mr. Obama, the sense that he is somehow not truly American. "Birthers" doubt that he was born on American soil. Others believe that he is secretly a Muslim, or in quiet simpatico with his old friends, Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, now icons of American radicalism.

But Barack Obama is not an "other" so much as he is a child of the 1960s. His coming of age paralleled exactly the unfolding of a new "counterculture" American identity. And this new American identity-and the post-1960s liberalism it spawned-is grounded in a remarkable irony: bad faith in America as virtue itself, bad faith in the classic American identity of constitutional freedom and capitalism as the way to a better America. So Mr. Obama is very definitely an American, and he has a broad American constituency. He is simply the first president we have seen grounded in this counterculture American identity. When he bows to foreign leaders, he is not displaying "otherness" but the counterculture Americanism of honorable self-effacement in which America acknowledges its own capacity for evil as prelude to engagement.

Bad faith in America became virtuous in the '60s when America finally acknowledged so many of its flagrant hypocrisies: the segregation of blacks, the suppression of women, the exploitation of other minorities, the "imperialism" of the Vietnam War, the indifference to the environment, the hypocrisy of puritanical sexual mores and so on. The compounding of all these hypocrisies added up to the crowning idea of the '60s: that America was characterologically evil. Thus the only way back to decency and moral authority was through bad faith in America and its institutions, through the presumption that evil was America's natural default position.

Among today's liberal elite, bad faith in America is a sophistication, a kind of hipness. More importantly, it is the perfect formula for political and governmental power. It rationalizes power in the name of intervening against evil-I will use the government to intervene against the evil tendencies of American life (economic inequality, structural racism and sexism, corporate greed, neglect of the environment and so on), so I need your vote.

"Hope and Change" positioned Mr. Obama as a conduit between an old America worn down by its evil inclinations and a new America redeemed of those inclinations. There was no vision of the future in "Hope and Change." It is an expression of bad faith in America, but its great ingenuity was to turn that bad faith into political motivation, into votes.

But there is a limit to bad faith as power, and Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party may have now reached that limit. The great weakness of bad faith is that it disallows American exceptionalism as a rationale for power. It puts Mr. Obama and the Democrats in the position of forever redeeming a fallen nation, rather than leading a great nation. They bet on America's characterological evil and not on her sense of fairness, generosity or ingenuity.

When bad faith is your framework (Michelle Obama never being proud of her country until it supported her husband), then you become more a national scold than a real leader. You lead out of a feeling that your opposition is really only the latest incarnation of that old characterological evil that you always knew was there. Thus the tea party-despite all the evidence to the contrary-is seen as racist and bigoted.

But isn't the tea party, on some level, a reaction to a president who seems not to fully trust the fundamental decency of the American people? Doesn't the tea party fill a void left open by Mr. Obama's ethos of bad faith? Aren't tea partiers, and their many fellow travelers, simply saying that American exceptionalism isn't racism? And if the mainstream media see tea partiers as bumpkins and racists, isn't this just more bad faith-characterizing people as ignorant or evil so as to dismiss them?

Our great presidents have been stewards, men who broadly identified with the whole of America. Stewardship meant responsibility even for those segments of America where one might be reviled. Surely Mr. Obama would claim such stewardship. But he has functioned more as a redeemer than a steward, a leader who sees a badness in us from which we must be redeemed. Many Americans are afraid of this because a mandate as grandiose as redemption justifies a vast expansion of government. A redeemer can't just tweak and guide a faltering economy; he will need a trillion- dollar stimulus package. He can't take on health care a step at a time; he must do it all at once, finally mandating that every citizen buy in.

Next week's election is, among other things, a referendum on the idea of president-as- redeemer. We have a president so determined to transform and redeem us from what we are that, by his own words, he is willing to risk being a one-term president. People now wonder if Barack Obama can pivot back to the center like Bill Clinton did after his set-back in '94. But Mr. Clinton was already a steward, a policy wonk, a man of the center. Mr. Obama has to change archetypes.

Now as promised a Special Comment on the madness of the Tea Party and the elections of next Tuesday.

It is as if a group of moderately talented performers has walked on stage at a comedy club on Improv night. Each hears a shout from the audience, consisting of a bizarre but just barely plausible fear or hatred or neurosis or prejudice.

And the entertainment of the evening is for each to take their thin, absurd premise, and build upon it a campaign for governor or congressman or senator. The problem is, of course, when it turns out there is no audience shouting out gags, just a cabal of corporations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and political insider bloodsuckers like Karl Rove and Dick Armey and the Chicken Little Chorus of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

And the instructions are not to improvise a comedy sketch, but to elect a group of unqualified, unstable individuals who will do what they are told, in exchange for money and power, and march this nation as far backward as they can get, backward to Jim Crow, or backward to the breadlines of the '30s, or backward** to hanging union organizers, or backward to the Trusts and the Robber Barons.

Result: the Tea Party. Vote backward, vote Tea Party. And if you are somehow indifferent to what is planned for next Tuesday, it is nothing short of an attempt to use Democracy to end this Democracy, to buy America wholesale and pave over the freedoms and the care we take of one another, which have combined to keep us the envy of the world.

The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate for senator from Nevada, Sharron Angle, compared rape to, quoting, "a lemon situation in lemonade." She would deny an abortion even to a teenaged girl who had been raped by her own father.

The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate to be the only Congressman in Delaware, Glen Urquhart, said "there is no problem that abortion can't make worse. I know good friends who are the product of rape."

Mr. Urquhart also does not believe the phrase "separation of church and state" was said by Thomas Jefferson.

He thinks it was Hitler: "The next time your liberal friends ask you about the separation of church and state, ask them why they are Nazis."

The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate in the Ohio 9th, Rich Iott, not only ran around in a Nazi uniform celebrating their military tactics, but implies he is a Veteran and as late as this March listed his occupation as "soldier" even though the volunteer militia to which he belongs has never been called, will never be called, to any active service, in the 29 years in which he has belonged to it.

It's more than just dress-up. They mean business - literally. The Tea-Party-and-Republican-candidate for New Jersey's 3rd House seat, Jon Runyan, defended corporate tax loopholes: "Loopholes are there for a reason. They are to avoid people from really having to pay too many taxes."

The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate for the Senate in West Virginia, John Raese, explained, "I made **my** money the old-fashioned way, I inherited it. I think that's a great thing to do. I hope more people in this country have that opportunity as soon as we abolish inheritance tax in this country."

The inheritance tax applies only to estates larger than $3.5 million. For the 99.8 percent of Americans not affected by the estate tax, there is the minimum wage, which Mr. Raese also wants abolished. Or there is Social Security.

The Tea-Party-and-Republican-candidate in the Indiana 9th, Todd Young, says "Social Security, as so many of you know is a Ponzi scheme."

The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate in the Wisconsin 8th, Reid Ribble, disagrees. Social Security "is, in fact, a Ponzi scheme."

The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate in the Arizona 8th, Jesse Kelly, wants to resurrect President Bush's scam to transform Social Security into private investment accounts so the government can force you to spend part of your paycheck on Wall Street commissions, and so that market manipulators can wipe out your retirement money.

The Republican candidate in the Wisconsin 1st, Congressman Paul Ryan, has a more sophisticated plan: Personal investment Social Security, guaranteed dollar for dollar by the government. A fiscal fountain of youth, until you find out its cost: Ryan would pay for it by taxing the health insurance you get from your employer.

If you are not employed, Mrs. Angle of Nevada says unemployment benefits can neither be increased nor extended because that "has caused us to have a spoilage with our ability to go out and get a job. There are jobs that do exist. That's what we're saying, is that there are jobs."

The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate for Senator in Alaska, Joe Miller, says this is academic, because unemployment insurance is unconstitutional. His own wife received unemployment insurance after losing a temp job he got for her. Mr. Miller also called Medicaid unconstitutional. It proved his entire family had received Medicaid funds.

Mr. Miller also claims Social Security is unconstitutional, yet hypocritically he says it should still be paid out, and then the issue dumped into the laps of the states.

The Republican-and-Tea Party candidate for Senator in Colorado, Ken Buck, would not stop at butchering just Social Security. [He said] "would a Veterans Administration hospital that is run by the private sector be better run then by the public sector? In my view, yes."

The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate in the Pennsylvania 4th, Keith Rothfus, has promised to overturn anything the Supreme Court decides, with which he disagrees: "Congress's ultimate weapon is funding. If the Supreme Court rules you have to do something, we'll just take away funding for it."

Back in Nevada Mrs. Angle decries health care - not reform, but health care itself. "Everything that they want to throw at us now is covered under 'autism'," she said. As to educating those children Mrs. Angle won't pay for, Mr. Buck of Colorado, waxes nostalgic: "In the 1950's, we had the best schools in the world, and the United States government decided to get more involved in federal education.well, since, we've made education worse, we're gonna even get more involved."

In Ken Buck's America of 1957, fewer than one in five Black children graduated high school. Fewer than half of white children did. To the Tea-Party-and-Republican-candidate in the California 11th, David Harmer, Mr. Buck is a wild-eyed liberal. Mr. Harmer once advocated eliminating public schools altogether, and return education in this country to where it was before 1876: "People acting in a free market found a variety of ways to pay for a variety of schools serving a variety of students, all without central command or control." And without girls, blacks, or even the slightest chance you could go to college.

The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate in the Virginia 11th, Keith Fimian, is "not so sure we need a federal burocracy for education."

The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate in the Florida 2nd, Steve Southerland, wants to "de-fund" the Department of Education because "we can't afford it."

The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate in the Texas 17th, Bill Flores, offers a tri-fecta plus a delusion. Get rid of "the pornographic endowment of the arts, department of energy, department of education" and with them, he says, ACORN. ACORN - which went out of business last April 1st.

The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate in the Arizona 5th, David Schweikert, is "passionately" trying to eliminate the Department of Education because it's "unconstitutional."

And while one of the few threads uniting the ragamuffins who constitute the slate of Tea Party candidates is so-called 'strict interpretation' of that Constitution, Mr. Miller of Alaska wants, in fact, to change the Constitution. He wants to repeal the 17th amendment.

The TeTea Party-and-Republican candidate for senator from Utah, Mike Lee called the 17th amendment "a mistake."

Last year, Mr. Buck of Colorado said the 17th amendment "took us down the wrong path."

The 17th amendment, of course, permits the direct election by the voters of U.S. Senators.

Buck and Lee and Miller not only demand you elect them to the Senate; they hope to then deny you the right to elect somebody else, next time.

The ubiquitous Mrs. Angle, meanwhile, wants to repeal the 16th amendment. It provided for a federal income tax. Mrs. Angle does not explain how, without it, the federal government would pay for keeping out the Mexicans she specifically attacks in her newest commercial.

The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate for Senator from Kentucky Rand Paul wishes to repeal the 14th amendment because it interferes with a private business's right to ban black people from its premises, and also because it allows anyone born here in America to be American. He is worried about anchor babies.

The Republican candidate for the 1st District of Texas, Louie Gohmert, fears not anchor babies but terror babies - unborn infants brought to this country in the womb, ready for American citizenship and pre-programmed to blow things up fifteen or twenty years from now. Curiously, he has not been asked if he is in favor of aborting them.

The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate for Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, sees not terror fetuses but headless bodies in endless deserts murdered by immigrants who are nearly all drug mules.

The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate for Governor of Colorado, Dan Maes, believes a bike-sharing program is part of a plot to turn Denver into a metropolis run by the United Nations.

The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate for Senate from Delaware, Christine O'Donnell, believes she was cleared to read secret classified documents about China because she's been working for Non-Profit Organizations for the past fifteen years. She also believes China is plotting to take over the United States and the first evidence of this is that "China is drilling (for oil) off the coast of Florida."

This fear of the Chinese clearly does not extend to the Tea Party-and-Republican candidate for Senate from Illinois, Mark Kirk. One day he held a fundraiser with American businessmen in China. The next day, he voted against closing tax incentives for outsourcing American jobs to places like China.

The Tea Party-and-Republican-candidate for Senate from Wisconsin, Ron Johnson is also in favor of relocating employees. He testified against toughening laws on pedophiles and employers who shield them. He argued this could damage a business. A business like the Catholic Church.

In Utah, the anti-bailout Senate candidate Mr. Lee, insists on not raising the liability limits for the next BP from $75 million to $10 billion: "You have a set of settled expectations that you give to a business when it decides to make an investment in this. Our country benefits from this type of activity."

Asked by the Salt Lake City Tribune if that's a kind of bailout, if it leaves taxpayers on the hook for part of the damage, Lee admitted, "Well, yea, probably does."

Mr. Paul of Kentucky called the nationwide pressure on BP to increase its damage payments "un-American." He is also opposed to Federal Mine Safety regulations: "The bottom line is: I'm not an expert, so don't give me the power in Washington to be making rules. You are here, and you have to work in the mines. You'd try to make good rules to protect your people here. If you don't, I'm thinking that no one will apply for those jobs."

Mr. Paul's admission that "I'm not an expert" does provide one of the few dovetails of the campaign. It matches nicely with Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin, who refuses to offer any specifics about his plan to deal with homeless veterans. He says, "This election is not about details."

Details have proved devilish for the Tea Party-and-Republican candidate for the second district of Virginia, Scott Ridgell He campaigned against the stimulus bill, including the Cash-for-Clunkers program. Mr. Ridgell is an automobile dealer, and happily made hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Cash-for-Clunkers program.

The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate in the Missouri 4th, Vicky Hartzler, says she and her husband are just small business owners. "We just want the government to leave us alone," she said. Hartzler and her husband have a farm. In the last fourteen years, that government they want to leave them alone, has given them subsidies totaling $774,000.

Mr. Raese of West Virginia told the Associated Press that "America is in an industrial coma" and blamed the "restrictor plate" that is "a bloated federal government." "I can't think," he added, "of very many times when a government agency has helped me."

The companies Mr. Raese owns have received $2.4 million in contracts from the federal government since 2000, and $32 million in contracts from the state government since 2000.

Back in Colorado, Mr. Buck apparently thought he was speaking to a campaign worker when he self-exposed his hypocrisy. In fact he was talking to a Democratic operative with a recorder in his pocket. Out of the blue, Tea Party nominee Buck blurted, "Will you tell those dumbasses at the Tea Party to stop asking me about birth certificates while I'm on the camera? God, what am I supposed to do?"

The contempt of Mr. Buck towards his own Tea Party, extends in many cases to reporters - and thus by proxy, to actual citizens.

For instance, the Tea Party-and-Republican candidate for Governor of Maine, Paul LePage (Luh-Page), threatened to punch a radio reporter.

The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate for Governor of New York, Carl Paladino, threatened to "take out" a reporter from the most conservative newspaper in any major American city.

A spokesman told the reporter that he was now off the Palladino mailing list, which has, in the past, consisted of e-mails featuring racism, pornography, and bestiality. Mr. Miller's private security guards in Alaska detained and handcuffed a reporter, and threatened to handcuff two more, without any legal right to do so, at an event at a public school.

The security company was operating with an expired license; its chief, has links to extremist organizations; and the defense was that the guards didn't know the individual was a reporter, which implies it would be just dandy to handcuff an ordinary citizen.

Ms. O'Donnell threatened to sue a Delaware radio station if it did not destroy the videotape of her interview there.When she did not like a question, she snapped her fingers at her own press aide then shoved him. The campaign manager threatened to "crush" the station if it did not comply.

The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate for the Senate from Florida, Marco Rubio dreams more of de-portation than de-capitation. He said, in March, "There are millions of people in America that hate our country, so why can't we just do a trade? We'll send you Sean Penn, Janeane Garofalo, and Keith Olbermann, and you can send us people that actually love this country."

This, incidentally, carries with it a tinge of irony. I don't know that any of his opponents has ever accused Mr. Rubio of not loving this country. He just doesn't love a lot of its people. The person they all love the least is of course the President.

The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate for Congress from the Florida 22nd, Allen West, had to leave our military after threatening to kill an Iraqi he was interrogating. Now he claims to have a higher security clearance than does the President. Mr. West also told his supporters that they could defeat his Democratic opponent by making the man afraid to leave his own home.

And Tea Party-and-Republican candidate for the House from the Michigan 7th, the ex-Congressman Tim Walberg, wants to blackmail the President into showing his birth certificate. to Rush Limbaugh. He figures he can extort this from President Obama by threatening to impeach him.

You are willing to let these people run this country? This is the America you want? This is the America you are willing to permit? These are the kinds of cranks, menaces, mercenaries and authoritarians you will turn this country over to?

If you sit there next Tuesday and let this happen, whose fault will that be? Not really theirs. They are taught that freedom is to be seized and rationed. They can sleep at night having advanced themselves and their puppeteers and to hell with everybody else.

They see the greatness of America not in its people but in its corporations. They see the success of America not in hard work but in business swindles. They see the worthiness of America not in its quality of life but in its quality of investing. They see the future of America not in progress, but in revolution to establish a theocracy for white males, with dissent caged and individuality suppressed.

They see America not for what is, nor what it can be. They see delusions, specters, fantasies; they see communists under every bed and a gun in every hand. They see tax breaks for the rich and delayed retirement for everyone else. They fight the redistribution of wealth not because they oppose redistribution, but because their sole purpose is to protect wealth and keep it where they think it belongs - in the bank accounts of the wealthy.

They want to make the world safe for Bernie Madoff. But you know better. If you sit there next Tuesday - if you sit there tomorrow, and the rest of this week - and you let this cataclysm unfold, you have enabled this.

It is one thing to be attacked by those who would destroy America from without. It is a worse thing

But it is the worst thing to sit back and let it happen, to not find the time and the means to convince just one other sane voter to put aside the disappointment of the last two years and look to the future and vote. Because the disappointment of the last two years will be the "good old days" in a Tea Party America.

This is the week in which the Three Card Monte dealers hope to take over the government -the candidates who want their own way, who will say anything to make palatable their real identities as agents of regression, repression, and corporate sovereignty. They are here, they have energized the self-serving and the greedy and the proudly ill-informed.

And if no other fact convinces you of your obligation to vote and canvass and phone and drag even to the polls the most disheartened moderate or Democrat or Liberal or abandoned Republican or political neutral, to vote for the most tepid of the non-Insane candidates, if no other detail hands you that spark of argument with which to invigorate the apathetic, you need only commit to memory the words of Steffan Broden and Sharron Angle.

She can run from reporters but she cannot run from this quote from January, and all the horror and insurrection it implies: "Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that's not where we're going. But, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those second amendment remedies."

Sharron Angle - too subtle for you? "Second amendment" remedies - guns instead of elections - too implicit? Fortunately, to our rescue, to the speeding of the falling of the scales from our eyes, comes the Tea Party and Republican nominee for the 30th Congressional District of Texas, "Pastor" Steffan Broden. "Our nation was founded on violence," he said, on tape.

Was armed insurrection, revolution, an option in 2010? "The option is on the table. I don't think that we should ever remove anything from the table. However, it is not the first option."

Thank you! The attempt to overthrow the Government of the United States by violence is not The Tea Party's first option. Next Tuesday is the first option!

The words are those of Nedrick Young and Harold Jacob Smith from the screenplay for the movie "Inherit The Wind." As the attorney for the man on trial for teaching evolution, Spencer Tracy gets to the gist: "Fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy, and needs feeding. And soon, your Honor, with banners flying and with drums beating we'll be marching backward, backward through the glorious ages of that 16th century when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind!"

The angered judge replies, "I hope counsel does not mean to imply that this court is bigoted." The attorney mutters, "Well, your honor has the right to hope." The Judge warns, "I have the right to do more than that." The attorney explodes: "You have the power to do more than that."

With the media sneering about the Tea Party candidates being a bunch of nuts, how about we take a look at some of the Democrats running this year?

We've got Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, who personally presided over the housing crash after getting that gay prostitution business behind him. Of course, Frank's actions are nothing compared to Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul's alleged participation in a college prank. Now, THERE'S a scandal!

California Sen. Barbara Boxer refuses to say whether a newborn baby is a human life. When Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn., asked her on the Senate floor a few years ago whether she believed a baby born alive has a constitutionally protected a right to live, Boxer was stuck for an answer. Her nonresponsive replies included these:

"I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born -- and the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights. ...

"The baby is born when the baby is born. That is the answer to the question. ...

That's not Patty Murray-stupid, but it's still pretty stupid. How many late-term abortions are you planning to get, Californians, that it's worth being represented by such a cretinous woman?

Even if you are under the misimpression that Boxer's Republican opponent, Carly Fiorina, is somehow going to outlaw abortion in California, Carly will cut your taxes so much that you'd be able to fly to Sweden for all your abortions and still come out ahead!

Liberals are indignant that Sarah Palin writes speech notes to herself on her hand. This week, Alex Sink, the Democratic candidate for governor in Florida, was slipped a debating point by her makeup artist, texted by a campaign aide in violation of the rules during a debate with her Republican opponent, Rick Scott.

Last weekend, Illinois governor Pat Quinn -- Rod Blagojevich's running mate -- stood silently as his supporter, state Sen. Rickey Hendon, blasted Quinn's Republican opponent, Bill Brady, as "idiotic, racist, sexist, homophobic."

Hendon has repeatedly made headlines over the past few years for his inappropriate behavior toward female colleagues. Once -- during a Senate debate -- he asked Sen. Cheryl Axley if her hair was naturally blond and then publicly propositioned her.

Another time, Hendon tackled Rep. Robin L. Kelly, knocking her to the ground after a House-Senate softball game she had come to watch in office attire.

GLENN BECK, HOST: I want to talk to you a little bit about mainstream and the mainstream and who is in it.

Last week, George Soros - spooky dude George Soros - put $1 million bounty on my head. He is literally dumping money into organizations who do nothing but try to get me or other people here at Fox fired - by faking outrage and taking words out of context.

So, let me ask you, who is scarier: Someone like me playing his cards face up on the table, tells you exactly what I am, what I believe, tells you don't take my word for it, go look it up. Look it up yourself. Go find out it. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Find it out yourself.

Or somebody who stands in the shadows and with their cash and their money and their influence and their power, they seek to silence and destroy someone that they disagree with. Not that they can prove wrong, but they disagree with. They don't have the debate. These people are willing to circumvent the Constitution of the United States and silence free speech and the freedom of press - all because they're very rich and powerful.

Now, maybe - maybe it's just me, but I have wondered several times: Has anybody ever noticed how long we've survived on this program with all the scrutiny, from every member of the press?

I am on the air four hours every day. Plus, I give speeches and live appearances. I gave two speeches yesterday. Live appearances all over the country. But let's forget about the speeches and the appearances. Let's just talk about when I'm on broadcast television or radio.

In one hour, I will say approximately 6,200 words. I speak four hours on radio and television every day. That's 25,000 words every day, 125,000 words a week. That's 6 million words a year. All uttered so somebody can tape it and check it.

I have also been doing radio and television for 12 years now. Radio, I did for 30 years prior to doing TV. Oh, if I had a dollar for every word I say, well, I'd still have to be on the air for 2.2 million more years to pay off the national debt.

Here's the point: I say all of these words, all of these words, millions of them - most of them are ad-libbed or off-the-cuff or off the top of my head - how am I able to survive?

Because I say what I mean and I mean what I say. I can speak freely because I believe in what I'm saying and I'm not afraid of getting caught in a lie.

I'm not far out of the mainstream. I may have things you disagree with me on, but I'm pretty close to the center. I have nothing to hide. People do disagree with me. But I'm not a radical. There's a difference.

Now, all of those years of words, four hours a day, I have more on record and four hours every single day than Barack Obama does.

Now, what about Barack Obama? He says a lot of words, too. But he also travels with a teleprompter at his hip. He's going to have a prompter with him when he visits India. According to the papers

over in India, quote, "A teleprompter will be in use for the first time in the Central Hall of parliament when President Barack Obama addresses MPs on November 8th." It's like Linus and his blanket.

Can you imagine if Reagan was like: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this - hang on, prompter, prompter, prompter, please - wall"?

All presidents use them. People in television use them. I use them. But no one, no one has ever used them like he has. The New York Times said, "presidents have been using teleprompters for more than half a century. But none have relied on them as extensively as Mr. Obama has.

While presidents typically have used these teleprompters for most of their speeches and inaugurals, State of the Union or Oval Office address. Mr. Obama uses them for routine announcements and even for opening statements of his only news conference so far."

Sources tell us in the White House, that in meetings with as few as six people in the room, around the conference table, president uses a teleprompter.

Because as soon as he goes off-prompter, he slips and shows what he really believes in. A few examples:

OBAMA: If Latinos sit out the election, instead of saying, We're going to punish our enemies and we're going to reward our friends.

BECK: He is keeping his true identity in the shadows. He can't risk being seen for what he really is: a radical. Every word must be scripted. They keep him on the prompter for a reason. In fact, I read about it just yesterday as I re-read the "Coming Insurrection." And this is not my marked copy.

In the place where they're talking at the very end about structure, and the structure that's not in place yet, they say, quote, "Visibility must be avoided, but a force that gathers in the shadows cannot avoid it forever. Our appearance as a force must be reserved for an opportune

moment. The longer we avoid visibility, the stronger we'll be when it catches up with us. Once we become visible, our days will be numbered. Either we'll be in a position to break its hold in short order or we will be crushed in time."

Because they're not ready to be visible yet. And that is your greatest strength - put light on their words, make them visible, and watch them scurry.

Short 2 page pamphlet on Obamacare (What does healthcare reform mean to you?). I bet your doctor would love to have a stack of these in his waiting room.

Lisa, are you going to shut down my Facebook page for writing this? by Sarah Palin

RUSH: This is Paul in Ipswich, Massachusetts, a great place to get a call from on Halloween weekend.

CALLER: The reason why I'm calling is I'm against Operation Reverse Chaos because I think in 2012, in our lifetime, this is our one and only chance to have a conservative third party that can win. I've always been Benson third parties because I think that's just breaks up our voting base and we lose, but I think Obama will be so toxic that if we have a true conservative like a Sarah Palin or a Jim DeMint, we can win and destroy liberalism for generations.

RUSH: Yeah, but you have to do it within the Republican Party or make the Republican Party the third party. You don't want to get elected as a third-party president. You don't have any constituency in Congress, anybody else in your party. A third party is really not the way to go here. The thing to do here is what's happening: A conservative ascendancy that creeps up and eventually takes over the Republican Party. Now, folks, I want to tell you something here. I saw that... Where did I see this? Oh! Oh! I didn't have a chance to reply to it. I got an e-mail from Mike Allen of The Politico last night. They're working on a story; they may have already run it.

Some Republican leader has told them that the Republican leadership is right now as we speak coalescing to find somebody to oppose Sarah Palin. They didn't identify whoever this "Republican leader is," so I can't tell you who it is, but they say that there's a Republican talking to them at Politico that they are trying to find somebody to beat back Palin, from the Republican establishment, because they are convinced that if Palin is the nominee, the party loses. That's, at least, what they say. It could also be they're scared to death that Palin wins it's the end of them: The Republican establishment.

Mike Allen wanted to take my reply, and I got his e-mail in the midst of a whole bunch other stuff. I just now remembered it so I haven't had a chance to reply. But let's see. This kind of thing, I think the reason I didn't drop everything and reply is 'cause the little antenna go up. It could be a disinformation campaign before the election. Why write a story right now about Palin in 2012? What's the point of running a story like that right now if not then to sow dissention in the ranks? But regardless of that, I don't want to go third party. You don't want to do it. It's gonna be tempting. Third party, you had it right the first time: Guaranteed lose.

RUSH: Obama is back to Delaware tomorrow. There is a new poll. The Monmouth University poll. Christine O'Donnell is within ten points. Two weeks ago she was down 57-38. She is within ten points. Coons has backed out of the final two debates, and in the Monmouth University poll, Christine O'Donnell is winning independents 47 to 42. In Delaware, there are a lot of Democrats fed up with the direction of the country who are going to vote Republican or who aren't going to vote. Christine O'Donnell may pull the big upset. If she gets within, say, five or four points, you really think that it's gonna be our guys who have ultimately killed off her chance to win? If she loses by three to four or five points, it's our fault (well, guys on our side) for what was happening to her, what they did to her after she won the nomination and beat Mike Castle.

RUSH: That senseless, dirty trick that they played, Gawker, the gossip site claiming some anonymous guy had a sexless one-night stand with O'Donnell? What's a "sexless one-night stand"?

Making out and drinking? What is? At any rate, there's no corroboration, there's no proof, and the source is anonymous. People have been looking into the, and this story is the falling apart. Then they found out Gawker paid this guy. So if you are a Democrat and you can't run on your record, what do you do? All you can do is go negative. That is all in the world you can do. What do you do when you're a failure and a loser? What do you do when you're about to get shellacked and you can't run on your agenda and you can't run on your agenda and you can't say, "Give us two more years to keep doing what we've done"? You have to go negative, you have to destroy, impugn -- and with a 19-point lead over Christine O'Donnell they have to resort to this?

And the supposed brilliant Coons backs out of the last two debates because the more he shows up, the worse it gets for him? The internal polling must really have them scared to death, for Obama to go back in there, to go back to Delaware tomorrow? So, folks, this is shaping up to be interesting, shaping up to be huge.

RUSH: Gawker had that story for 11 days on Christine O'Donnell, that made-up story fed by an anonymous guy. They paid for it and sat on it, so it would do the maximum damage and she wouldn't have time to fight back. But the standard old page from the playbook -- October Surprise, go negative -- I don't know that this stuff is gonna work this time around. I think the psychology, the mood of the electorate, the impatience and anger for the status quo includes a refusal to put up with the tactics of old. ABC News, Jonathan Karl story: "Democrat Closing Argument: Personal Attacks -- Democrats' attack over personal issues, Republicans are attacking Democrats over policy."

In other words, Republicans are attacking the substance of the Democrats; the Democrats don't even try to attack the coming Republican policy. All they're doing is going negative on personality, personal attacks. Nobody... Let's look at Christine O'Donnell as an example. If she is the neophyte dunce, the inexperienced little twit that everybody says, why not go after what she says she will do as senator? Because she is running a top-to-bottom, issues campaign. She is explaining to the people of Delaware how she's gonna vote on things, what she thinks philosophically and ideologically.

Why not attack that? If the liberals are so convinced the country doesn't want what conservatism is or what conservatives stand for, why not attack that? Why rely so some made-up story by some anonymous goofball about a woman who they make jokes about regarding masturbation? Here's a woman supposedly having a "sexless one-night stand." What is that? (interruption) No, no, no, no! Look, don't... (interruption) This is why the staff doesn't have microphones. "The broadcast engineer said, 'What is a sexless one-night stand? A date with your wife.'" Don't say that. That's not true. No, no, no, no.

A sexless one-night stand, I guess she spent the night with a gay guy. What does it possibly mean? Well, they just talked. But big whoop! They're out there trying to paint this woman as unqualified because she's Miss Goody Two-Shoes? And then they try to (ahem) ram this story down everybody's throat? It doesn't even have any believability.

RUSH: Does anybody doubt now that the Clintons are on board for Operation Reverse Chaos? Ha-ha! Ha-ha-ha-ha! Oh, yes! Operation Reverse Chaos, Bill Clinton is fully on board. This boondoggle with Kendrick Meek and Charlie Crist. Gosh, we love it.

RUSH: I guess we can now add Kendrick Meek to the list of Obama's shovel-ready jobs. You know, what's interesting about this? Snerdley, all of you, you live in Florida. I want you to confirm something for me here on this. I don't mean this to be insulting. There are a lot of Florida Democrats, including African-Americans, which is the core Democrat constituency here in the Sunshine State. Many of them are not newshounds. I mean, the Florida Gore-Bush recount caught 'em off guard. They were stunned. They only learned about it two days after it happened. I will wager you that a number of core Democrat constituency group people are just now learning that Kendrick Meek doesn't have a chance of winning.

You have to understand, the core Democrat constituency here believes the Democrat on the ballot equals a victory. Now they're hearing for the first time that Kendrick Meek is gonna lose. And what is it about the Democrat Party and black candidates? Once again here's Clinton sent down to tell Kendrick Meek (doing impression), "Hey, hey, Kendrick? You know, ha, you remember Bob Torricelli? Yeah, old Torch? Yeah, well, he had some great ambitions out there but he got in a little bit of trouble and I had to tell him that, if he had any future at all of walking, if he didn't want to just have to crawl the rest of his life he get out of the race and he listened. You remember Andrew Cuomo? I told him, 'Get out of that race.' Carl McCall?

"I said, 'Get out of that race for governor of New York. Your time's coming later,' and they all did it. Kendrick, it's your turn. It's your turn to do one here for the Gipper. You gotta get out of this race." Now, Meek says it never happened. Well, he says he never told Clinton that he would quit the race. The story is he told Clinton twice he would do it. Now, Meek says that it was Crist who asked him to quit. That's the latest this morning, that Charlie Crist asked him to quit -- and for anybody in this state who thought that Charlie Crist was a Republican, this ends it. This is Reverse Operation Chaos played out to a T.

RUSH: This is not about Kendrick Meek, but it's quite interesting that in order for the Democrat Party to get what it wants in the state of Florida, the black guy has to leave. Not Crist! The black Democrat has to leave. Crist starts out here as a Republican and then moves to the "moderate center," he says, at least on social issues. He maintains that he's a conservative fiscally. Now of the two guys, who is it the White House was talking to? Crist was on Greta Van Susteren last night admitting that he is speaking to people in the White House, although he wouldn't identity who in the White House he speaks to. So here's Kendrick Meek, the Democrat, wins the Democrat primary. Everybody in his party from Bill Clinton to Obama, is conspiring with the ex-Republican, Crist, to get Meek out of the race.

Meek, the black Democrat, has to get out of the race in order for Marco Rubio to lose. "The Meek shall inherit the earth." It may actually eventuate in this case. They won't win Florida but they will inherit the earth. What this is really about is denying Marco Rubio. The Democrat Party just can't live with the possibility that a bright, young, vibrant, intelligent winner in the US Senate is Hispanic. The Democrats claim to own that ethnic group. This is, in fact, reminiscent of the way they dragged Anita Hill out of the forest at the last moment to try to declare Clarence Thomas. Same reason: The civil rights coalitions, the Democrat Party simply could not abide that the most powerful black man in America, an associate justice of the US Supreme Court, would be conservative and black.

That wasn't gonna happen. That's why Anita Hill was dragged out of the woods; that's why all of that happened. It's why this is happening. It's why they're asking the black Democrat to get out in favor of the perpetually tanned, gray-haired Charlie Crist who's not a Democrat but doing a great job of acting like one. He's on with Greta Van Susteren last night, Kathryn and I sitting there watching this, and obviously they were having some delays in the audio, because there were a number of times Greta would ask him a question and he looked like an absolute deer-in-the-headlight idiot. I am sure there was a delay, probably some cross-talk. He thought she was talking when she wasn't. It served to make him look stupid, and that's what counts on television: How you look. He wouldn't identify who he's talking to.

As often as he could he said, "Well, Greta, what this is really all about is preventing a right-wing fanatic, a right-wing extremist who wants to roll back Roe v. Wade and so forth from winning election." He turned it into an attempted campaign appearance. I don't think he pulled it off.

RUSH: Now, the Democrats are reeling. Clintongate has been exposed in Florida. This is going to help Marco Rubio. It is not going to help Charlie Crist. At all. Now, a guy like Marco Rubio can do the same for Hispanics with a conservative message that liberals knew Clarence could do for African-Americans. They know this. They have co-opted Charlie Crist, which it's not a tough thing to do with Crist's ego. But dropping out of the Republican Party, going moderate. Remember the early polls in this race? Rubio in a two-man race over Meek wins big. The early polls: If it goes three ways, Crist wins. It's not eventuating. Rubio is winning no matter how you slice it. Ergo send Clinton down there to get rid of Meek. Meek spoils it all by saying, "I never said I would quit," after it's reported he's gonna quit twice.

Now Meek is out there saying, "No, it's Crist that came to me and actually asked me to quit. So Meek is trying to save Clinton's bacon. Meek is trying to save Clinton's bacon while Clinton's trying to get rid of Meek, and in the process Crist and Meek are being aced out. Rubio is gaining from all this. Reverse Operation Chaos is on display right in front of your face! Gosh, I love it. And this stuff in Delaware? She's moved to within ten points, leading independents by five points. Obama back in there tomorrow.

RUSH: We have some audio sound bites coming up from Clinton and Meek on this business. I don't want to give this up yet. I think it is important to point out that Rubio is the key here. They're really trying to derail Rubio. That's the point of the whole thing going on. They just can't stand Rubio. Democrats "own" the Hispanic vote. This is Miguel all over again. Here's the party that claims to be the party of minorities, to stand up for you. Look what this party does to black politicians: It gets rid of them! In this case it knifes them in the back, and the list is long. Maynard Jackson wanted to be head of the DNC. They took care of that, they got him out of the way for that, former mayor of Atlanta. Carl McCall wanted to be governor of New York. They wouldn't fund him.

The list is long. And now Kendrick Meek. Kendrick Meek is denying... He went on television last night on deny that he ever agreed to quit. The story is that he almost quit twice because of the strong persuasive pitch that he got from Bill Clinton. But Clinton and Crist and everybody else are publicly putting out that he did agree to quit. Twice. They're in the press with this. They're not letting Meek change the agenda here. They're not backing off of this. So it seems to me that they're gonna take Meek out regardless, whether he decides to get out race or not. He's not gonna get out. What did I read, 1.7 million Floridians have already voted in early voting. But just the story is why it was such a big deal last night.

Just the story breaking of an attempt to get Meek to step down is a signal to Democrats in Florida, particularly blacks: Don't waste your vote. Putting out a story that Meek agreed to quit says, "Don't waste your vote. He agreed with us. He agreed with us twice. He was gonna quit. He agreed that voting for him would be a waste," which totally demoralizes any voter support that Meek had. This is a knife in the back. This is the Democrat Party again, with the first black president being utilized to take out another black Democrat in place of a white ex-Republican. (Well-tanned, but nevertheless white ex-Republican.) It would be interesting to find out who leaked the Meek story. Of course, we could pretty much guess about this.

But I wonder how many blacks notice this. I wonder how many. Because Meek is not a Clarence Thomas in their minds. He's not a conservative. He's the son of a congresswoman. Carrie P. Meek, I think, is her name. He was a loyal Democrat all along. He's the one who gets knifed in the back by his own party, by the first black president. Not the first time. And apparently it doesn't matter in the African-American population in this country. It doesn't affect 'em at all. "We love you, we care about you, we're gonna make sure Republicans don't put you in the back of the bus. We're gonna make sure Republicans don't initiate slavery again. Just vote for us every four years. We'll remember you. Yeah, and you get in our way, and we'll take you out faster than a slave owner in the 1800s ever could." If you don't fit in a Democrat liberal plantation, they'll kick you out of it -- and they don't give you a mule. In fact, not only do they not give you a mule, it is a jackass leading the party that's knifing you in the back and sending as an emissary the first black president -- and, again, all for what? The benefit of a white guy, a former Republican, Charlie Crist. Let's go to the audio sound bites. This is last night, Anderson Cooper 210. He was talking to the first black president, Bill Clinton. It was actually Susan Candiotti on Anderson Cooper 210. She said, "What did you talk about with Congressman Meek?"

CLINTON: I told him that, uhhh... We went through everything, we talked about it a couple times, and I said in the end, you know, he would have to do what he thought was right. He'd have to do what he felt best about, felt right about; and I think in terms of what I said to him and what he said to me -- since he's my friend and he's the candidate, and he wanted for us to talk as we always have -- I -- I have to let him say whatever he wants to say about our conversation. It would be wrong for me to discuss it.

RUSH: (laughing) As you discuss it! (impression) "It would be wrong for me to discuss this while I'm talking to you about this, but I think it's up to him to say whatever he wants to say. He's my friend. We're best buds. He doesn't mind whatsoever I stabbed him in the back. He doesn't mind whatsoever I'm trying to get rid of him. He doesn't mind whatsoever that I'm sending a signal that a vote for Meek is a wasted vote. He doesn't mind 'cause we're friends and he knows that I'm the first black president. So basically I said, 'Meek, you better just get back down on porch. Head back out to the porch, boy. That's about what you're worth to us.'" Now, Clinton's dodges here in the sound bite just like he did with Sestak.

Can there be any doubt now Clinton was lying about Sestak when it emerged that Clinton had offered Sestak a job to get out of the Senate race? Remember that? Clinton said (doing impression), "I never offered him a job. I never did. I didn't have the power to offer him a job. I never told Meek to get out. I left it up to him. He can say anything he wants out there. I don't care what he says (chuckles) because I said, 'Kendrick, that porch over there, that's yours, bud.'" Last night on Countdown, Keith Olberdorkk talked to Charlie Crist. Question: "The Meek campaign's been in touch with us, wanted to ask by proxy a question: 'How would you know there have been conversations about Meek dropping out?'"

CRIST: How would I know? 'Cause I had numerous phone calls of people very close to President Clinton.

RUSH: Yeah, "very close." He wouldn't say who. He did say Doug Band but he didn't identify "people in the White House." He's also been talking to people in the White House. Kendrick Meek, you Democrats in Florida, Charlie Crist has been conniving with the Obama White House to find a way to get rid of the Democrat primary winner in the state of Florida. You have Crist, the sour grapes loser, just like Murkowski sour grapes loser. Crist lost his primary; Meek won his. The Obama Democrat Party is trying to get rid of who? Their own black guy! Van Susteren said, "Did you speak to anybody at the White House, Governor Crist?"

CRIST: Subsequent to conversations with those close to Mr. Clinton, President Clinton.

RUSH: He would not identify the people in the White House. They can say whatever we want. She gave him a list of names: "Well, did you talk to Axelrod?" No. "Did you talk to David Plouffe?" No. "Did you talk to Robert Fibbs?" No. He talked to somebody in there, but he wouldn't say who. Last night in Miami Gardens, Kendrick Meek for Senate headquarters, Meek held a press conference and said this...

MEEK: The press report that's out there from Politico is inacc'rate, at best. Any rumor or any statement by anyone that says that I made a decision to get outta the race is inacc'rate. At best. At best it's inacc'rate. President Clinton did not ask me to drop out of the race. No one from the DNC. And of course there has been rumors going on, the White House. No one has called me and said, "Hey, you need to get out of the race."

RUSH: Kendrick, come on, Clinton just is out there telling everybody he met with you and that you can make up your own mind. Why would Clinton meet with you? I mean, they're trying to take a job from a black guy and give it to a cracker -- and, by the way, the definition of a "cracker" is a southern Floridian. So Crist is a cracker. And the Obama White House and the DNC are siding with the cracker over Kendrick Meek. There's no question about it. Here's Meek this morning on CNN. The co-host Kiran Chetry said, "Well, who ultimately broke the story? The New York Times, Politico? They said Clinton himself made clear that he did speak to you about the issue. He left it up to you to make the decision. Are you saying none of that happened?"

MEEK: President Clinton and I talked about it. Yes, we did. But he didn't say, "Hey, listen, this is my recommendation to you," because that's not his place. He asked me about reports of last week and the week before. President Clinton and I had a discussion. No spokesman -- and no one was in the room. We talked head-on-head about this issue. There was no agreement.

RUSH: They "talked head-on-head." Hmm. Okay. They t"alked head-on-head." So Meek says Clinton and I "talked" about it but they didn't "discuss" it. They talked about it "head-on-head" but they didn't "discuss" it. So last night on CNN's John King USA he had this exchange with Gloria Borger, their senior political analyst, about the report that Clinton did try to work a deal to get Meek to quit.

KING: The question I have is: If you're already having trouble with the Democratic base, what is an African-American voter -- whether they in Miami, Florida, or Philadelphia or Chicago or Los Angeles or anywhere else in America --

BORGER: Well, it's a real problem and that was one of the considerations, I think: First of all, do you upset the African-American community? Secondly, you have a governor's race going on there. Alex Sink would not want you to depress the African-American vote.

RUSH: Alex Sink doesn't know what day it is. She wouldn't have the slightest idea any of this is going on. At any rate, once again -- and not to be redundant, but I think it's important -- here's the Democrat Party openly shafting a loyal African-American, asking him and suggesting in public that he quit. They're undermining this guy no matter whether he quits or not. They're guaranteeing his base is depressed. They hope will abandon him, in exchange for voting for Charlie Crist, the ex-Republican. He has got the pipeline to the Obama White House, not Kendrick Meek. At some point, folks, African-Americans, the Democrat Party gonna say, "Wait just a second. What are we doing?

Where is the, uh, Reverend Jackson? Where is Reverend Sharpton?" I'll tell you where they are. The only reason the Reverend Jackson and Reverend Sharpton have any clout at all in the Democrat Party is 'cause they follow orders. They deliver. They have a seat at the Democrat table of power by virtue of getting the vote out for Democrats every four years. If that means making sure that Kendrick Meek gets out of the race or Carl McCall gets screwed, so be it. Their loyalty is to themselves, not the racial movement, the civil rights movement or what have you. They know full well that if they do not fulfill their role and promise, that they are just as discardable as Kendrick Meek is.

RUSH: Now, ladies and gentlemen, proof that this is Reverse Operation Chaos is that Kendrick Meek this morning is trying to blame Charlie Crist for initiating this and not Bill Clinton. I find that very telling. Now, of course, Crist wouldn't go Meek directly. That wouldn't make good copy. You know this is a Clinton thing. You know this is a Clinton-Obama thing. This is right out of either DNC or White House. They call up Bill Clinton, he is the guy that goes in with this message -- and now after all this, who is Meek protecting? He's protecting Clinton. He's not protecting Crist. He's claiming that all this was Crist, but we know what really happened. We know this is Clinton for sure. And let's break this down.

In the Florida Senate rate, who is the whitest guy in the race? This is how the Democrat Party looks at things, folks, not me. They're the ones that groups people by gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, what have you. Who is the whitest guy in this race: Charlie Crist, Marco Rubio, Kendrick Meek? Charlie Crist, hands down, despite the tan, is the whitest of these three candidates -- and who is it the Obama White House and the Democrat Party are arranging to win this thing? The white guy. Can you say "civil rights"? Can you black African-American Democrats say "civil rights"? Can you give me a "civil rights," say what it is? Who is your party supporting? The white guy in Florida! Who is your party trying to destroy, knifing in the back?

The black guy! In exchange for what? The white guy! All because they're scared to death the Hispanic guy is going to ignore, totally blow their effort for amnesty. The most powerful Hispanic in the US Congress would be a Republican, in the US Senate would be a Republican who opposes amnesty. There goes that whole voter registration drive out the window. So guess what? Guess what matters most? Hispanics. You African-Americans, they already have you. You're in the palm of their hand. They know you're not going anywhere. They can't afford for Rubio to get in there. So the white guy -- and Crist is probably the richest of these three people!

He's probably the whitest. No question he's the whitest despite the tan. He is the richest. Who's the Democrat going for? Can you say "civil rights"? This is not an insignificant development, ladies and gentlemen. This is Reverse Operation Chaos played out before our very eyes in the result of sheer panic.

Since there are some links you may want to go back to from time-to-time, I am going to begin a list of them here. This will be a list to which I will add links each week.

Conservative blog, but with an eye to the culture and pop culture (there is a lot of stuff here):

Conservative and pop culture blog (last I looked, there were some Beatles’ performances here):

Send this link to the young people you know (try the debt quiz; I only got 6 out of 10 right):

PA Pundits, whose motto is, “the relentless pursuit of common sense” (I used many of the quotations which they gathered)

The anti-Jihad resistence (which appears to be a set of links to similar websites):

Mostly a liberal blogger, who says vicious things about most conservatives; and yet, says something sensible, e.g. posting many of the things which the healthcare bill does to us.

News Organization (I mention them because I have seen 2 honest stories on their website, which shocked and surprised me):

Even though this group leans left, if you need to know what happened each day, and you are a busy person, here is where you can find the day’s news given in 100 seconds:

Weatherman Underground 1969 “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.”

Janine Turner’s website (I’m serious; and the website is serious too). This is if you have an interest in real American history:

Judith Miller is one of the moderate and fairly level-headed voices for FoxNews:

This is an odd blog; conservativism, bikinis and whatever else posted by either a P.I. or the brother of a P.I.:

Info Wars, because there is a war on for your mind (this site may be a little crazy??):

The Magic Negro Watch (this is peppered with obscenities and angry conservative rhetoric):

Do you want to watch what is happening on our border? These are actual videos of observations cams along the border:

No matter what your political stripe, you will like this; evaluate your Congressman or Senator on the issues:

AC/DC economics (start with the oldest lessons first; economics in 60 second bites):

The Freedom Project (most a conservative news and opinion site which appears to concentrate on matters financial)

This appears to be a daily pork report, apparently as pork in Washington bills is discovered, it gets posted at Tom Coburg’s website:

Weekly poll, asking you to identify what we ought to cut in governmental spending:

This is an interesting site; it seems to be devoted to the debate of climate change:

This is indispensable: the Wall Street Journal’s guide to Obama-care (all of their pertinent articles arranged by date—send one a day to your liberal friends):

Obamacare class action suit (as of today, joining in on the suit costs you whatever you want to donate, if I understand the form correctly):

A Muslim apologetic site (they will write out letters to express your feelings, and all you have to do is sign them, and they will send them on):

Since this will be with us for a long time, the timeline of the BP gulf oil spill:

This is cool: a continuous timeline of the spill, with the daily info and the expansion of the oil, and the response:

Army Ranger Michael Behenna sentenced to 25 years in prison for 25 years for shooting Al Qaeda operative

Maybe the White House does not need to hold press conferences? It releases exclusive articles daily right here:

This is quite helpful; it is a list of all leftist groups, with links to background information on each of these groups (when I checked, 879 groups were listed). This is a fantastic resource.

In case you need to reference this, here are the photos of all those on the JournoList:

Are you tired of all the unfocused news and lame talking heads yelling at one another? Just grab a cup of coffee, sit back, and see what is really going on in the world:

Conservative New Media (it is so-so; I must admit to getting tired of seeing the interviewer high-fiving Carly Fiorina 3 or 4 times during an interview):

One of the more radical people from the right, calling for the impeachment of Obama:

The Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a free enterprise site (there are several videos on the flat tax):

This is a pretty radical site which alleges that Obama is a Marxist hell-bent in taking over our country:

1982 interview with Larry Grathwohl on Ayers' plan for American re-education camps and the need to kill millions

This is a news site which I just discovered; they gave 3 minute coverage to Obama’s healthcare summit and seemed to give a pretty decent overall view of it, without slanting one way or the other:

I have glanced through their website and it seems to be quite professional and reasonable. They have apparently been around since 1942.

This is fantastic; Florida (the Sunshine State) is now putting its state budget online:

Suzanne Somers s supposed to be older than Bill O’Reilly? He interviewed her this week, and she looked, well, hot. She is big into vitamins and human growth hormones.

The National Journal, which is a political journal (which, at first glance, seems to be pretty even-handed):

And I am hoping that most people see this as non-partisan: Citizens Against Government Waste:

This website reveals a lot of information about politicians and their relationship to money. You can find out, among other things, how many earmarks that Harry Reid has been responsible for in any given year; or how much an individual Congressman’s wealth has increased or decreased since taking office.

This is an outstanding website which tells the truth about Obama-care and about what the mainstream media is hiding from you:

Politico.com is a fairly neutral site (or, at the very worst, just a little left of center). They have very good informative videos at:

On Obama (if you have not visited this site, you need to check it out). He is selling a DVD on this site as well called Media Malpractice; I have not viewed it yet, except pieces which I have seen played on tv and on the internet. It looks pretty good to me.

We watch FOX so you don't have to). Be clear on this; they do not want you to watch FoxNews.

Conservative Review
Issue #150	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	October 31, 2010